It'd be interesting if they went with additional cameras for this. For example, the rear-view mirror is a video feed already. It could stream from a camera you attach to the back of the trailer instead.
I don't have a lot of personal experience with trailers, a few thousand miles maybe. But I've never liked clip on side mirrors. They bounce around/vibrate. A camera system that's optically stabilized and patches into existing displays would feel a lot more natural for someone like me with minimal experience.
It's not an easy feature to test. A lot of magazines have used really fake looking inflatable or cardboard people. Radar systems are going to see those really well. Machine vision solutions may correctly classify the objects as non-human. You don't want your emergency breaks to go off every time a plastic bag floats in-front of your car.
Not that it's a guarantee but at least tesla's emergency breaking detects pedestrians already. We're still a couple years from release. I'd like to think the long-term solution is to just stop hitting pedestrians with cars.
* webapps -- we tried this (iPhone v1) and they were awful. The web keeps improving but apps have consistently been years ahead.
* native software -- still too difficult to secure reliably.
We haven't really been suffering from fragmentation. We've essentially consolidated down to two platforms. You can also develop for the web or use a cross-platform framework.
Not really sure what you see as flawed. The app model has been wildly successful.
> Not wearing a seatbelt can put others at risk for injury liability.
Wow, I'm surprised that has never occurred to me before. I guess that to most people, such as myself, the trade-off is so obvious from a personal safety point of view that we don't think too deeply over it. This is a great point.
Ignoring the windows store, this is really more of a "let developers handle their own updates" situation. The vast majority of modern windows software updates itself directly or through a loader (steam, etc). Windows developers can easily tie into distribution services that offer update mechanisms. The default user experience is not 'no automatic updates.'
It's widely understood how the wake-word system works. You can monitor how much data is being uploaded and when. So no, it's not possible to just stream everything you say undetected.
As far as SharePoint goes, the current versions should work just as well (usually better) in Chrome. Should be mostly on par since the 2013 release.
The biggest feature difference for SharePoint cross-browser has historically been with the ActiveX controls. Say you had Word installed, there was a control to open documents with Word. As in, you could click save/view/edit rather than just whatever the browser default was. Or with Skype, to see a user's available/busy/away status next to their name on a SharePoint page. So if you're looking at a wiki or calendar for something, you might go "oh, the author is free, I can just ask." Chrome's plug-in model was much stricter than ActiveX. That's why you'd see some features in IE but not Chrome.
Microsoft and Google exist in a bit of a cold war. They don't want to destroy each other in court. You can't just take free shots and not expect a response.
They mention the example of browsing to a web page. Not quite a fully fledged remote execution bug but close enough. I think what they're really saying is they're aware of remote execution cases. An example of that might be a web services that's backed by a SQLite query.
I don't have a lot of personal experience with trailers, a few thousand miles maybe. But I've never liked clip on side mirrors. They bounce around/vibrate. A camera system that's optically stabilized and patches into existing displays would feel a lot more natural for someone like me with minimal experience.